What part of theocracy does this man not understand?

Ann

The stupidity and ignorance of this man (or rather, a 'pig' and 'monkey' according to the people he was brown-nosing) are breathtaking.

Branston

Absolutely bonkers

Sounder

"Non-Muslims have 'absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.' If they do, 'the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.' " — Syed Abul Ala Maududi, founder of the Pakistani political party Jamaat-e-Islami

I guess the Judge got the memo. Is he converting?

Neil Saunders

Lord Phillips and Dr Williams are NOT stupid; they are simply articulating the establishment line.

It is not an accident that such high-profile public figures have been chosen as the mouthpieces of the creeping Islamisation of our institutions. No, it is in fact part of a calculated policy being zealously pursued by our elites.

They are well aware that Muslims constitute the fastest growing minority in this country, and that their numbers will be significantly higher in twenty or thirty years' time.

With their high birth-rate and continued open-door immigration, in little more than a generation they may even become the majority.

This is the thin end of a very large wedge.

robert

How can an "important judge" be so clueless? You are joking aren't you? The legal establishment in this country is perhaps the most dangerous, destructive - and above all unaccountable - force for evil of all. And, with competition from parliament and the BBC, that's saying quite something!

Joe Strummer

The trouble with naive individuals like this Judge and A-of-C Rowan Williams is that they genuinely do not conceive or fully understand the horrific legacy they will impart on generations to come in this country if they implement what they are saying.

Andy Gill

If there is one good thing about the looming economic recession, it is that as living standards fall, ordinary people in the UK will become increasingly hostile to Islamocreep.

Rebel Saint

The Archwizard Gandalf is in Bradford next week. Anyone fancy joining me during any of his meet & greets whilst wearing "Sharia Law: Over my dead body" T Shirts?

Dave M

It's history being repeated. The same situation happened with the Roman Empire where alien religions and philosphies undermined the simple values that had made Rome a global Empire in the first place. You see, what we need to understand is the Islamization of Britain isn't taking place due to the strength or success of Political Islam. Political Islam failed the Middle East in a big way with respect to technology, free thought and creativity. No, the Islamization of Britain is taking place because Britain is "spent" as a world power and in deep decline, as Melanie pointed out the other day (with respect to education). So, no matter how we may point to the stupidity and illogic of individuals such as the Archbishop, the elite in this country will not change course. It's like a speeding train running towards the end of a cliff and, sooner or later, the train will fly over the precipice. Where there is collapse and uncertainty, there is a void and Political Islam (when invited to do so) will fill that void. That's precisely why after the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe went into a Dark Age for several centuries and people chose religion above science and free-thinking. My prediction is that part of Europe and the U.K. will indeed become Islamic societies within a few decades but possibly China will lead the way towards science, space travel and prosperity. China will not embrace political Islam at any cost.

SethK

Of course these dhimmi males are fine with sharia. Like their Muslim counterparts, they get a great deal under sharia...while women lose everything.

Verity

Where does one begin?

I posted elsewhere that Phillips is yet one more crackpot clutching at mahatama-esque threads of glory. He soul is so expansive he understands all. This is mahatama-esque grandstanding to the Muslim gallery, aka the Muslim Council and the rest of them, who will shower him with praise for his deep understanding. The same as that needy moron Rowan Williams, who was chosen by Tony Blair to destroy the CofE. Which he has done, in all his naive arrogance.

These spiritual swankers (the first 's' is not a typo) and publicity seeking poseurs are as thick as a hammer. And that's what they are: Tools.

Blair's government was the first government in the history of our country in which the government was actually the fifth column. Once one understands that, one can click the whole jigsaw puzzle into place.

I don't know what power HM has over the Lord Chief Justice, but surely to God, so to speak, she can sack Williams?

field

"Although Lord Phillips did not specifically mention the Jewish Beth Din courts, he seems to be labouring under the same delusion as Dr Williams that what Muslims want under sharia courts is the same as Jews already have under the Beth Din. But the huge difference between Jewish and Muslim religious courts is that Jewish courts administer only informal rulings and are bound by the law of the land."

We've been through this before. I'm afraid Melanie is completely and factually wrong on this. The provision for Shariah courts to decide divorce matters between couples is found in the same law as the one that allows Jewish religious courts to adjudicate.

Neither the Jewish nor the Shariah court (general religious court) provisions are in any sense "informal".

If you have married according to Orthodox Jewish rites then - EVEN IF YOU HAVE APOSTASISED FROM JUDAISM IN THE MEANTIME - you can be forced by the Courts to have your case decided by the Beth Din courts with their decision referred to the secular court for final ratification.

I am afraid Melanie has not given a proper account of the law here.

If people are going to try and rubbish this accurate description of the law I shall be obliged to quote it again in full. It is perfectly clear.

Of course with Islam, it WILL be even more problematic. An apostate from Islam could place themselves in severe jepoardy if they were obliged to attend a Shariah court.

The law is an outrageous travesty and Jewish organisation s were very misguided in pushing for its introduction.

Verity

Dave M - You are correct. It is our own people who are giving us away. The fifth column, including the Archbish of Cant, who see themselves as spiritually elevated somehow because they can "embrace" other religions.

I see two little English boys were punished at school yesterday because they refused to kneel on a mat - in a lesson - to learn how to pray to an alien diety.

They had to learn the "correct" way of kneeling on a mat and the "correct" way of cleaning their feet. It was just "religious education", of course. Not indoctrination. A little Christian girl went home in tears because she'd allowed herself to be bullied by the teacher into obeying.

How many Muslim chlidren are forced to recite Christian prayers? Would I be correct if I guessed ... none?

How many Hindu children are forced to undergo Muslim prayer rituals? How many Sikh children? How many Jewish children? Would I be correct in guessing "none" because their parents would take action?

Only the indigenes are expected to passively allow their religion and their country to be removed from under their feet (which should be bare, but washed).

How did this happen so quickly were not the government of Britain also acting in the duel role of Fifth Column?

A mere 10 years, and here is where the malign, viscious Tony Blair managed to drag Britain. All our laws accorded to us under the Magna Carta, gone. Our House of Lords - unelected so with independence from party loyalties - chopped down. Our right to defend ourselves and our homes and families, gone at the behest of the thought police. Guns for self-defence, of course, long gone under Tony's eager, febrile fingers.

"New" Labour has been Britain's greatest enemy since the Nazis, and vastly more successful.

Frank Pulley

Another forensic exposure of the so-called Great and the Good, Melanie. This is scarey stuff.

And Peter Oborne has joined the pro-Muslim club with his pamphlet in the Daily Mail today see:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031769/Is-post-war-Britain-anti-Muslim.html),

to be followed up on Monday by a Channel 4 documentary at 8pm.

Dark forces at work here. Who is pulling this together?

Oborne's opening gambit:

"The history of post-war Britain is a proud story of enlightenment and the steady eradication of irrational fears and resentments. Prejudice against foreigners, homosexuals, gays and blacks has been softened or even eliminated. But today, one resentment is stronger than ever. Islamophobia - prejudice against Islam - is Britain's last remaining socially respectable form of bigotry, and we should be ashamed of ourselves for it."

Is Oborne one of Gramsci's guerillas too?

I repeat, who is orchestrating this - and why?

Jenny

He simply doesn't care. I'll lay odds that if one took a peek at Lord Phillips' finances and investments, one would no doubt find a clue. He is betraying the British people, and it's government, putting freedom and liberties on the auction block. Not surprising, the Queen herself is willing to sign away sovreignty, as are the PM, the ministers of all the parties, and that grotesquerie, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Neil Saunders

Frank Pulley: "I repeat, who is orchestrating this [Islamisation of Britain] - and why?"

Read Bat Ye'or and the late Oriana Fallaci and find out!

Roy

How can anybody after reading this and skipping through the 'speech' not have the overwhelming urge to hug the first BNP or UKIP member one recognisers in the street? Does it also frame some good questions to ask your MP or his/her stalwarts in the coming hustings? Does it not frame a thousand questions?

Verity

Frank Pulley - Well, well, well, Oborne too, eh?

But you know what? The British people were not vigilant. They allowed themselves to be bullied into silence by people with an agenda the size of a house. Yet they stayed silent because somehow, the bullies, like Alastair Campbell,to name but several, were so in control.

What could Alastair Campbell have done if Charles Moore had published the MoToons? But Moore feared to find out and didn't publish them.

(The brave and heroic Ezra Levant, in Canada, published them and got bankrupted for his impertinence.)

The minute I saw Tony Blair's face on TV as the probable next PM of Britain, I saw a road map to today. I saw it all in his cold-eyed, malign "smile". One man. Yet everyone went along with it. This must be the most bizarre event in the history of the human race.

Verity

Jenny - Agree about the Queen. She could have removed Blair years ago, as she could now remove Brown and his government of utter corruption. But she fears what they will do. So she doesn't. So what is she for?

Somedude

Lord Phillips is a whore for the islamic agenda and has been bought lock stock and barrel by the fanatic islamsists

John

Attagirl Mel

john doe

"the overwhelming urge to hug the first BNP or UKIP member "

I would not wish to contaminate myself.

raymond joseph douglas

I worry about these so called "clever men" who are our senior judges.The USA also has it's share of deluded liberal judges on it's supreme court!

TomTom

There is a wonderful play by Max Frisch - "Biedermann & Die Brandstifter" - essentially "The Bourgeois and the Arsonists" - it would seem that Lord Phillips is such a naive fool that he thinks he can compromise with the arsonists and his house will not burn down.

Maybe he has never read Karl Popper. British judges are noted for their limited philosophical grasp, but Lord Phillips as a maritime lawyer is clearly all at sea in 21st Century Britain.

He should read up on 1641 and see what happens when The Establishment becomes Ancien Regime and totally divorced from the public at large.

There was a very useful function served by the Lord Chancellor before Blair/Straw tampered with the office - it was to shield the Judges from ridicule and political humiliation

S Brown

"Schoolboys disciplined for 'refusing to pray to Allah'"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2247388/Schoolboys-disciplined-for-'refusing-to-pray-to-Allah'.html

Nuff Said...

phil

For goodness sake is this a Christian country or not -every other religion here accepts British law and integrates with it ,no religious law supersedes it Some are partially accommodated but never overrule it -It is time our government put its foot down and says loyalty and subservience to our way of life is non negotiable before it is too late .

The Muslim people caused no trouble until 9/11 and now both they and us are having our lives worsened by religious extremists and terrorists amongst them .We need to all stand up and say enough is enough.The BNP is making inroads into normal decent people who are not by nature right wing fanatics solely because our leaders are not facing up to the problems we are encountering .,they feel abandoned and are expressing the opinion that they have no place to turn other than them .We are getting to the eleventh hour and we had better do something about it now .

Timber

I hope that I'm dreaming and that I'll soon wake up from an Alice in Wonderland nightmare. Islam is a prison and we'll soon be behind its bars if we don't watch out.

Neil Saunders

There are still some posters here who just don't get it.

I repeat, Lord Phillips, and other apologists for and enablers of the Islamisation of the UK are NOT "naive" or "deluded". They are spokesmen for a deliberate policy being pursued at the very highest levels of the European establishment, and as such are fully aware of the implications of what they say.

It's a great shame that the Internet (in its present form) didn't exist forty or fifty years ago. Until its advent most of us (myself included) were deceived (however sceptical we might have thought ourselves) by the mainstream media. Had we known then what we know now, much of what has taken place in recent years could have been averted.

Incidentally, why do you think that any proper public discussion of mass immigration was effectively outlawed for thirty or forty years? Why do you think that draconian "anti-hate" legislation (in respect of Muslims) has been brought in (largely unopposed by the official opposition)?

Frank Pulley

Neil Saunders (and Verity)

>"Read Bat Ye'or and the late Oriana Fallaci and find out!"<

Oh indeed I have - and Mark Steyn, our own Melanie, Scott Burgess (pbuh) and many, many websites from both sides of the divide, for the past six years or so, that indicate in the clearest terms what is going down with the jihad.

What I was really asking is what's behind this latest upsurge of pro-Muslim propaganda first from the Arch-Dhimmi Druid, then Lord Phillips and now Oborne. I've never been a fan of Oborne who seems politically all over the shop, but he is a regular contributor to the Speccy and could loosely be considered to be some kind of Tory, couldn't he? This latest outburst is surprising to say the least. I must go back over his stuff and try to find the well-spring of this little gusher. As for the Lord Chief Justice .... "the long march through the institutions" now seems to have reached into the deepest and most exclusive chambers of the corridors of power - we already knew that its footprints were in the hovel (No.10). Better get the forensic boys into 22 Old Queen Street and check out the imprints on the carpets.

Perhaps 'Somedude' (see above) has a point. Has the bung gone in somewhere? Come on 'associate editors' of the Speccy; let your subscribers in on the game plan here. Were they all at the Bilderberg shin-dig this year, or something? Or maybe their stockbrokers were. Perhaps it was decided that we must accommodate some new banking arrangements with the tsunami of Islamic money that's washing about since the oil price-hike exploded and that Sharia law is a necessary gambit to facilitate it. Who is the primary puppeteer 'ere. I'm a determinist and simply don't believe in this sort of chicanery as coincidental. I know the CofE has been a bit skinners lint; that became obvious when it flogged off all its brothels in Paddington a few yonks ago. As for religious, philsophical, moralistic, or jurisprudential principles? As Melanie would say, "Expletive deleted!" I wish she wouldn't sometimes. Maybe sticking a few f***s into a some of the more flagrant of the bent bastards might make them think!

Lee Harvey Oswald

"Admitting that he knew little about sharia law, Lord Phillips said he had taken advice in Oman and that as a result of this (clearly highly partial and inadequate) briefing he was able to state..."

ummm how much of Sharia do you know Mel?????

David

You are an utter hypocrite and bigot. All that is being pointed out is that the system of binding arbitration used in this country allows for parties to use any basis to settle disputes, including their own religious laws. You seem to be quite happy for Jewish laws to be used in this way, but not Muslim. You're a disgrace.

Dave M

Has anybody noticed also how the growth of Islam in the U.K. split the so-called special relationship with the U.S.? This has happened since New Labour came to power. Of course, I'm no fan of George Bush and American foreign policy over the last few years but, nevertheless, the situation has changed a great deal. The U.K.'s involvement in Iraq and Afganistan is pretty much a sham as the Labour Party never supported the armed forces in practice. It just felt constrained to follow the U.S. line and pay lip-service to the "war on terror". Moreover, it always seemed pointless to me for a country to send troops overseas supposedly to combat Islamic extremism while such Islamic extremism is making greater inroads within our own borders. Even a visiting Iraqi diplomat who visited some U.K. mosques was shocked to find more extremism amongst clerics here than is typical in Baghdad mosques. So far as I'm aware the new special relationship is now between America and Israel and neither Brown nor Blair are informed concerning the details of U.S./Israeli policy regarding the Middle East. In some cases this is because the U.S. doesn't trust the U.K. with delicate information. That is a far cry from the days of Thatcher. There is a sense now in some European countries, Russia, Israel and America that London has fallen under the influence of political Islam.

Ann

David, you seem to be having some wee difficulty following the discussion so far. The situation vis-a-vis Jewish and Islamic religious tribunals (ro whatever you choose to call them) is not at all the same. When you have stopped trawling dodgy websites (you know what I mean) you may be able to concentrate on this point.

Field, you are wrong, as I know from people who have been through Beth Din procedures and then decided to use the normal civil system. I can't tell you more, since I would be betraying a confidence.

bill

Re "How can England’s most important judge be quite so clueless?" La plus ca change la plus c'est la meme chose.

David

Since, Ann, the application of Sharia Law in the UK would be under the exact same terms as halacha, it is entirely hypocritical and bigoted to say that it is fine in the latter case, but not the former.

The idea that use of Sharia mandates a change in the law, but the use of Halacha doesn't is patently false, as is the notion that somehow this means that muslims are not being treated equally in the law.

I suspect Melanie would scream blue murder should a government put forward proposals to ban the use of the Beth Din and halacha via the arbitration system, yet appears unwilling to allow the muslim community the same access as enjoyed by others, religious or otherwise to arbitration based on the method of their choosing.

Melanie's article is a mendacious conflating of what she believes certain muslims want-the adoption of sharia as superior to British law-not what was actually said in this case, in particular, that like in any other form of arbitration, the principles agreed by both sides can not infringe British law.

Rob-NY

It is amazing how staunch social liberals can give in to fascsim with a slight nudge.
It has happened in Europe before and sadly it will happen again.

James

The Peter Oborne piece that appeared in the Mail is astonishing.

Others have quoted the opening paragraph, which talks about prejudice against “homosexuals” and “gays”. Which culture is the most intolerant of gays and homosexuals? Is Mr Oborne aware of a country called Iran and how it treats gays, indeed why some of its gay population seek sanctuary here?

Maybe all you have to do is play the minority card yourself and then you can trump another minority? Is that it?

He objects, he says, to “Islamophobia - prejudice against Islam”. Does the man know the meaning of the word prejudice? It means to pre judge – hence prejudice. But all around the country people are not prejudging Islam, they are reading The Koran and other Islamic texts and finding things such as this:

“Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.”

Does Mr Oborne think that someone who objects to this is prejudiced? I suggest I’m not being prejudiced if I object to that statement, because I haven’t pre judged anything at all. I’ve looked at the evidence and find it objectionable.

Mr Oborne asserts:

“There is no social, political or cultural protection for Muslims. As far as the British political, media and literary establishment is concerned, the normal rules of engagement are suspended.”

Excuse me? As others have pointed out before, if someone were to rewrite that passage and replace the word “unbelievers” with the word “Muslims” they’d be arrested double quick. Is this not a gaping cultural disparity that privileges one section of society over the rest?

Mr Oborne claims to be concerned at demonisation. Does he think the passage quoted above is demonising?

Mr Oborne sets out his stall against what I consider to be the oxymoron “Islamophobia” (I do not consider it an irrational fear to object to the passages - and others like it - that I have quoted). He then proceeds, though, not to provide examples of this – people objecting to certain parts of The Koran – but of what I would call Muslimophobia, which is something else altogether.

The vast majority of people in this country do not wish harm of any sort on Muslims themselves. What some of us fervently wish is that the religion be reformed in the same way that so many other religions have been. That does not equate to endorsing physical attacks on Muslims.

Of course physical attacks on Muslims are wrong and criminal, but that is to change the subject entirely from dealing with the teachings of The Koran.

Mr Oborne does, though, mention The Koran:

“In their arguments, all those making such sweeping dismissals of Islam interpret the Koran as a violent text and Islam itself as bloody and oppressive.
They ignore its overwhelming message of peace and tolerance.”

Note the use of the word “overwhelming”.

Let us apply this logic to the BNP. If the BNP, in its next manifesto, says enough acceptable things in proportion to a smaller percentage of unacceptable things, do we then say that the BNP are “overwhelmingly” tolerant and we should then vote for them?

Mr Oborne, let us remind ourselves, spends a great deal of his time earning a living by attacking the double standards of politicans.

Physician heal thyself.

David

I hate to break the news to you Rob, but (assuming the NY indicates you are in the US), the US provides for exactly the same arbitration mechanisms, although it's harder to appeal them to the courts on grounds other than procedural error.

Rob-NY

Fair point David especially with the recent Supreme Court decision but you will agree Britian is speeding farther down the loo than your American cousins in this respect.

Harry

Charles Moore:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/05/do0501.xml

and Simon Heffer:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/05/do0503.xml&page=3

give their thoughts on Lord Chief Justice Madcap.

David

" The Koran and other Islamic texts and finding things such as this:

“Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.”"

I suggest you read Dawkins. This is the basis of his argument against all religions, on the grounds that similar passages can be found in religious texts from a variety of religions, including Christianity (like Islam, spread somewhat on the back of the sword).

"The vast majority of people in this country do not wish harm of any sort on Muslims themselves. "

I agree. But that doesn't mean not pointing out and expressing concern that people like the BNP and others do. The CST for example rightly issues an annual report on anti-semitic attacks to ensure the issue does not fade from sight.

steve

David: Well put! This is exactly what Phillips said in his talk and in interviews he did. It is hardly fair to allow one religion this right while denying it to others.

paul hill

It is ,of course, a masterful little exposition of the current place of subsidiary and faith based legal systems within the overall framework of English jurisprudence.

It sets firm and precise limits to the place of these inferior(in the proper sense) systems within the overall pattern of English law and like the Archbishpo of Canterbury's speech on the same subject is undoubtedly the product of a first rate intellect

The ire of St Mel of Golders Green and her acolytes appears to derive from either having not read the speech,not having understood it or a simple derire to keep crying "wolf!"

The fact that a few Muslim leaders would like more change is noted (I would personally like change to the Parking Regulations in The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea....and have as much chance of getting it).

I presume its not worth discussing the position in Scotland as the Scottish judiciary will be murdered in their beds by the Caliph of Sauciehall Street and his (Halal) meat n'tattie pie munching Dervishes

Ann

"that similar passages can be found in religious texts from a variety of religions"

And no doubt, you will very soon list for our edification the recent occasions when such passages were implemented by Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews, Christians and Hindus, all of whom proceeded to explode bombs on the Tube in order to murder those they conside infidels.

Ann

"Since, Ann, the application of Sharia Law in the UK would be under the exact same terms as halacha, it is entirely hypocritical and bigoted to say that it is fine in the latter case, but not the former"

I assume that your use of the word 'would' is meant to imply that you know exactly and categorically how it would be applied, right?

The fair-minded reader will judge which of us is bigoted and a hypocrite. I have no worries on that score.

Ann

"Melanie's article is a mendacious conflating of what she believes certain muslims want-the adoption of sharia as superior to British law"

What utter nonsense. Plenty of Muslims say exactly that. Do some basic homework before you post such ignorant statements.

Ann

Paul Hill with yet another posting filed from Planet Zog. It's a documented fact that some Muslim British police officers are ALREADY refusing to deal with domestic violence against Muslim women, because such is permitted under Sharia - and nobody does ought against this.

Verity

Neil Saunders - a ripping good post! How could the British be so naive? How could they not see clearly that Tony Blair and his (or their) agenda was part of the programme? How could they have been so easily and trustingly led when the agenda was writ so large?

Frank Pulley - Yes it is chicanery and it is orchestrated. Druid Archdhimmi Rowan was appointed by Blair to destroy the CofE, which he,in his stupidity and arrogance, has done. Now Phllips, a Jew is commenting when he cannot be unaware of the aggression of Islam?

(BTW- not entirely relevant, but worth mentioning. The militant Muslims want to convert or kill people who don't believe in their diety. Join the fold or else. The Jews, on the other hand, fight tooth and nail to discourage people from converting to Judaism. They are far, far, far from being a proselytising religion.)

BTW, in addition to the writers above, Bruce Bauer is well worth a read. Very clever and articulate writer.

Tiberius

The above representations of the Peter Oborne column are partial at best. If anything, he's highlighting that there is a very healthy resistance movement to the Islamification of Britain.

As for the conspiracy theories, well I tend to agree with the late Frank Johnson, that someone or something will blow them apart sooner or later. We know now, for example, that Edward Heath presided over a conspiracy about the true intentions of the EU. Since a Leftist conspiracy would have had to have started sometime by 1975, I think the whistle would have been blown by now. And I can't see what his Lordship or the Archbishop would gain from joining a conspiracy to Islamify Britain. If, as is conceded above, they are intelligent, they will know they will find themselves or their descendents being pushed over the white cliffs of Dover along with the rest of us. No; I think we have the 2000s versions of the defeatists, masochists, and pacifists that Western Europe suffered from in the 1930s.

I have said before that I just don't see Britain being successfully Islamified (just as a student in the 1970s, I instinctively didn't believe the world's predicted population explosion would result in mass starvation by the 21st century), but I do believe there is likely to be some measure of violence to stop it, which will, of course, happen before the demographic factor can prevent that outcome, but mainly at the suggestion that Kylie Minogue or Ant And Dec are banned from TV. Oborne's report is one which suggests that the reaction is already happening at a relatively low level.

If we (God forbid) do arrive full-on at the violence stage, it will be an irrefutable fact that the warning given by Powell, however clumsy one might judge his language, was correct. His observations were grounded, it should be remembered, not on racial differences, but on experience of the tensions created in India by the co-existence of groupings with deeply entrenched, irreconcilable cultural differences.

Paul Hill

Hi "Ann"-source please on Muslim Police/Domestic violence

Adam M.

One of the posters on this discussion has chosen as his screen name "Lee Harvey Oswald".

This must mean something, but what???????

Adam M.

One of the posters on this discussion has chosen as his screen name "Lee Harvey Oswald".

This must mean something, but what???????

Tiberius

Adam M: it means it was the man on the grassy knoll all along.

wonderer

Per Phil: "The Muslim people caused no trouble until 9/11", but what about the attempt to blow up an El Al jet leaving Heathrow in 1987 (Irish girl, Anne-Marie Murphy, duped by Jordanian father of her unborn baby into putting bomb in her luggage); Rushdie affair in 1989; 1st attempt to blow up World Trade Centre in 1993?

J. Isaacs

Ann - David is still having a few wee difficulties following the discussion so far and reading Melanie Phillips' article. Do you think he will ever follow it? I think not.

Verity

Phil (and Wonderer) Hmmmmm. I believe the US Embassy in Teheran was seized by Islamic militants and held for over a year in 1979?

I believe I'm right when I say that in 1983, a Muslim suicide terrorist drove a truck into the US Marine barracks in Lebanon in the middle of the night and killed 241 sleeping Marines?

In 1992, I believe there was a bomb attack on the Israeli Embassy in Argentina.

Then in 1993, there was the first attack on the WTC.

Harvey

Much as I -erm - hate to interrupt the two minutes hate, but has anyone read what he actually said?

Or what Rowan Williams actually said come to that...

john doe

"The Muslim people caused no trouble until 9/11"

Are you kidding? They've been waging war against unbelievers since the 7th century! It's called Jihad.

john doe

I have noticed that any comment I make concerning Mohammed is unfailingly censored. This is very worrying indeed. Given Melanie's unremitting crusade against radical Islam, I find it very disappointing and disturbing that there is no freedom to discuss the founder of this belief system. Mohammed, the man, and that's all he was, is at the heart of the matter and he is seen by Muslims as the perfect man and model of conduct, the messenger of God. If no truthful discussion of this figure is allowed here, then I fail to see the purpose of these threads following any post by Melanie on Islamic jihad.. It would all seem beside the point...Mohammed being the point. Is this censorship is rooted in fear,and not respect. Not fear of causing offence, but fear of death threats? Will this comment get past the moderator?

Carolyn

I would like to know what Melanie thinks of Shahid Malik’s description of Muslims as the ‘new Jews of Europe’...

Not a lot I suspect!

Jonathan Hoffman

Shahis Malik - a member of the government - says that Muslims feel like the Jews of Europe.

It is perfectly legitimate for Muslims who have done nothing wrong to protest, if they feel badly treated.

It is NOT legitimate for Malik to make false comparisons with the Nazi regime where elimination of Jews was government policy. The UK government bends over backwards to not discriminate against Muslims. Indeed many believe it goes much too far, as in the case where the government did nothing about the ‘ultra vires’ attempt by West Midlands Police to dictate editorial policy to Channel 4 for the ‘Undercover Mosque’ programme.

wonderer

Also, Verity and Phil, the Paris Metro, though I forget when, and the massacre of a multi-national tour group, together with Egyptian policemen at Luxor in 1997: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_1997_Luxor_massacre . And btw, unlike (more often than not) the IRA, they don't give warnings.

Neil Saunders

Harvey, to what are you actually referring, when you speak of the "two minutes hate"? (Borrowed, of course, from Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, a novel devoted to the examination of the use of dishonest and manipulative language as an ideological tool and instrument of tyranny.)

It wouldn't be Verity and wonderer's (factual) catalogue of Islamist acts of terror carried out prior to 9/11, would it?

In which case, when did the presentation of facts (specifically as a rebuttal of a demonstrably false claim made by "phil" on this thread) become the expression of "hate"?

FriarTuck

First the Archbishop -- now Lord Phillips. Can it be that there is a future "Defender of the Faiths" lurking in the background?

Geoff Miller

What this cretin doesnt understand is that by “allowing” muslims to “choose” to follow sharia laws there will not be an option given to muslims but it will become a requirement forced upon all muslims with the official sanction of the British Government.

Then what happens when a non muslim has a dispute with a muslim?

It wont be long before muslims insist upon sharia law being applied esp. if the muslim feels to be the offended party.

Will women have a choice in reality - of course not. Will ordinary muslims who otherwise would be happy with English law - never. Will anyone making contracts with muslims be forced into accepting sharia law - of course they will.

It wont be long before local councils, the goverment and employers will be obliged to take out sharia contracts with muslim companies, individuals and organsations - out of “respect” and “diversity”.

Its obvious where this will lead.

Its a pity that our lives are in the hands of morons who can’t see past the end of their noses.

phil

Wonderer .john doe -I was referring to the Uk population

Ann

"Paul Hill" - there are no quotation marks anywhere in my name.
Go and do some basic homework. There have been plenty of links on previous threads here. Hint: West Midlands.

Ann

"I instinctively didn't believe the world's predicted population explosion would result in mass starvation by the 21st century"

It's only 2008. Can you really foresee the events of, say, 2076? I am impressed.
The world's population is already past sustaining. China is destroying the natural environment even faster than the Russians did around the Aral Sea.

I do agree that we are seeing is a frightening repeat of the 1930s, when people in power were too cowardly and too stupid to see the risk or to do anything about it. And to claim that Islamic violence started on 9/11 is ignorant beyond belief.

Ann

J. Issacs - I doubt it.

Harvey - some of us can read, yes. You might join us one day. Maybe.

Miranda Rose Smith

Very good, Ms. Phillips. You clarify an important distinction, between informal dispute resolution by sharia courts and the resolution of family and marital issues.

phil

ANN---"-And to claim that Islamic violence started on 9/11 is ignorant beyond belief."

Ann you have such an endearing turn of phrase ,can you not just disagree politely as most do here, and then let us have your instances of previous serious problems in the Uk, not just youths scrapping .

You inform us that you are doing well in your profession and I am pleased for you (not too patronising I hope),but it surely is not counselling is it ?-perhaps you will tell us what actually it is . It might help us to understand why you are so aggressive to us all.

logdon

This is a phenomena whereby the leftist counter culture has in fact become the legislative culture. As various blogs point out, political correctness rules with a rod of iron and legal edicts. This is not confined to Britain, and similar European countries are suffering from the same stifling censorships and dhimmi activity. The Islam in Europe blog is awash with similar tales from Germany, Holland, Sweden, Italy, Spain, France and Denmark. Following 9/11 and our London Bombings the cries of islamophobia ratchetted up and Islamists used a similar technique to the one used by Hamas right now, ignore the provoking violence but concentrate on the reaction. In other words they bombed us and killed civilians but that is appalingly dismissed as reaction to our foreign policy and racism, thus legitimate and our leaders swallow it hook line and sinker. Rather than clamping down on infringement of our social norms (and law) they applaud them and amazingly pump yet more money into the communities. So thus the message goes out. Attack and the kuffar will capitulate, fearing the dreaded racist word. It is quite pathetic and a ruse so thin, a schoolchild could see through it but it works on the useful idiots and thus will carry on until someone wakes up to the smell of arabic coffee. But again in the blogs we are witnessing a massive yawning chasm opening between our populace and people like Williams and Phillips. They have had enough and are becoming far more more vociferous in condemnation of these creeps who would sell our birthrights for the mess of potage which would replace it. Last week's tale of a teacher at Alsager School, forcing under threat of punishment pupils to bow to Allah, dress in Arab headwear and chant in Arabic is classic by now. However some quite rightly refused were punished and the row is now echoing around the media. The footwear clad police dog tale is another as was the poster featuring a puppy, which was denounced as racist and is to be replaced. Our public is treated as idiots and they are reacting. Hopefully Cameron will see the light!

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

And now I read that a leading barrister, Stephen Hockman QC says that it is " vital" for sharia law to be incorporated into British law, and that if it is not, there will be "very dangerous results." If this is not a very loud declaration of appeasement, then I don't know what is! At the time of the American war of independence, there was a popular song entitled "The World Turned Upside Down". It should soon be in the charts again.

As for Ann "being so aggressive to us all", I can well understand the frustration she feels with some of the posters here. She rightly feels that they could do with a good shaking!

Tiberius

Yes, Ann, do relax a bit.

There have been many apocalyptic predictions but technology often finds a solution. So, no, I have no ideas what the world will be like in 2076, but I have faith in Man's ability to address many of the future's problems as it has in the past.

davod

"Admitting that he knew little about sharia law, Lord Phillips said he had taken advice in Oman"

This f.....g idiot is a lawyer. He is talking like a politician, not a lawyer. Whatever happened to studying a subject before commentating.

davod

I wonder if this is the slow crawl back to get in the Saudis good books after the bribery scandal.

As I recall, just after the Wiliams comments, a government minister praised the comments as being enlightened. It was only after the uproar from the populace that Brown was crtical of Williams. Even the uproar did not slow down the move to accepting Sharia financing as an acceptable financial instrument.

The Law Lords seemto be falling in line.

Dave M

I'm now waiting for Melanie's next article that may comment on those schoolchidren forced to carry out prayers to Allah in a Cheshire school. This has also been in the newspapers and shocked the parents concerned. Still on the topic of Sharia Law, I was reading the arguments raised in its favour in the newspaper yesterday. A judicial supporter of the Archbishop boxed himself into a corner, I think, when he outlined his views in favour of Sharia Law. He argued that seeing as the mulsim population of the U.K. is set to increase to huge levels over the coming years, the incorporation of Islamic codes and practices in our society are inevitable. He then hinted that if society wasn't transformed to cater to the muslim population we could face a "dangerous" situation. By that, I take it he meant possible riots by Islamic extremists similar to those in France or Denmark, or perhaps civil war till society gives way. So, it would seem that those of us who many years ago warned mass immigration would destabilise and fragment society did get it right after all!! If the supporters of the Archbishop fear actual civil tension and unrest within the country, that speaks volumes in itself. Of course, back in the seventies, many enlightened folk warned of social unrest or ethnic tensions as a consequence of the multiculturalism experiment. In all such cases, the Labour Party, B.B.C. and clergymen of the time ridiculed such a notion. We were all apparently "scaremongering". The idea of an Islamic Britain was preposterous! However, the liberal elite has now discarded that former line of defence and taking a more pragmatic approach. I would sum the pro Sharia view up as follows: "Now we've gotten us all into such a huge mess society had better adopt Sharia Law pretty sharpish before we wind up with a civil war on our hands." P.S.. please take note of the following crucial point: Those "enlightened souls" who advocated we all embrace with open arms the multicultural/diversity agenda are now telling us that tolerance of Sharia Law will definitely not lead to no-go areas for unveiled women or repression of social freedoms. The claim is we only need to give way a little and incorporate the "good bits". Thus, once again, those of us who warn of dire consequences are "scaremongering". How many times do the advocates of diversity and tolerance have to be proven wrong before they sink the collective ship?

phil

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)-the problem is she shakes those who agree with her too

Justice Tort

Wouldn't a secular society be a saner and a safer society?

Isn't freedom FROM religion just as important as freedom of worship.

I don't want the law hijacked by politically motivated unelected clerics. Do you?

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

Well, Phil, Ann doesn't shake me, even 'though we did have a minor disagreement some time back over Kosovo. She doesn't believe in pulling her punches, and I'm all for that. Problem is that some people, in relation to certain matters, can't cope with having the truth thrust at them.

Michael B

The world is ruled by a combination of inertia, acceptance and succombing, or occasionally by a generation that is more genuinely and more completely self-possessed. The Left's long pose, its long insinuating march and puffery, has afforded it center stage, therein demonstrating self-importance and self-possession are not at all the same thing; posturing is not the same thing as history better conceived, as history worked toward in a manner that reflects a full range of self-possessed qualities, as accomplishment.

Our hollowed out, Multi-Culti Lord is somehow a fitting representation of all that posturing and theater, or at least is a fitting personification of its current terminus. It's more complicated than that, individuals, as such, do not reduce to abstract constructs, but it's there in plain sight for any to see.

paul d hill

"Ann" -can you post one of these numerous links that relate to your allegations regarding Muslim Police Officers and domestic violence.

Its called basic good manners in Britain

phil

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)-you must have been born lucky .I agree with most of what she stands for and I stiil get slated -I only ever ask her to moderate her language not change her opinions -what is your secret?

Ann

Phil, I mentioned the oppression of women. That's not 'youths scrapping'.

I know that you have an obsession with what I write. Others use similar language, yet you don't obsess about them. Really, you ought to do something about this disorder.

I don't need to tell you what my profession is, any more than you need to tell me yours. I never said anything about being a counsellor - just more of your overactive imagination.

I repeat: anyone who doesn't know about WTC mark I, the many massacres in Algeria, the massacre of tourists in Egypt, and a great many other such events, has no business throwing his weight about and making ignorant categorical statements about the absence of violence pre-9/11.

Ann

PH - when you stop putting my name in quotation marks, which is very poor manners indeed, I might reply to your post. You are hardly in a position to lecture to me about manners.

Ann

Ben-Tsiyon - thanks. And yes to the rest of it. These b*** ignorant lawyers seem to think that they have beeen elected by a landslide to be PMs, on a platform of total appeasement.

Ann

Dave m, 3:37 pm: excellent post, to which I can add little or nothing. I did see at the time the truth of what Powell was saying. Nobody believed me. I was called everything from moron to racist. I wish I'd been proved wrong instead of right.

Ann

Tiberius, I am perfectly relaxed, thanks. I believe in vigorous debate, with a pinch of mild irony occasionally. Sorry if it's too rich for you. And I do agree with much of what you say.

Phil: hardly. 'Twasn't all that long ago that you were hounding me from thread to thread, whether or not I was addressing your posts, all because I disagreed with one of your posts, on a matter of socio-political principles (re Jews).

paul hill

"Ann" unfounded allegations .....inabilty to provide sourcing or independent evidence......hostility when asked to do so.....hysterical abuse of those who don't agree with you?

You ARE Melanie Phillips and we ALL claim our £5.00

claudiina apicella

How did this man receive his title?
Why was such a fool made a CHIEF JUSTICE?
IF immigrants wish to come here to live they must accept the laws of this country. if they want THEIR LAWS then it is simple. JUST GO BACK TO YOUR OWN COUNTRY FROM WHENCE YOU CAME!
JOHN HOWARD the prime Minister of Australia was so right when he told them just this in no uncertain terms.

Damien

Part of the reason why he is so clueless is because anyone who openly criticizes Islam risks becoming a pariah. Thank you political correctness.

Ann

"Paul Hill" claims that I am MP and then accuses ME of being hysterical ... you couldn't make it up.

Magnus Nielsen

The judge is expressing his political opinions in public. For this, he should be sacked.

F. and U. Adenufyet

Magnus Nielsen
Good point.
Can anyone tell me my rights?
If I wanted to wear a t-shirt with the slogan 'islam is evil'
(because I believe it is), am I breaking the law?

Georgina

My, my David (July 5th, 2008 12:56pm) is in a huff. But why?

What part of this don’t you understand, David?

“the whole point about sharia is that it recognises no higher authority than itself?”

You shriek about Beth Din but it has no legal authority on a par with the law of the land. Jewish law always defers to the law of the land. It does not have equal footing with it and it does not have an agenda of trying to supersede it.

To quote the Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali:

“As with the beth din of the Jewish community, it is perfectly possible for religious communities to rule on personal, family and financial matters as long as this does not interfere with the workings of the law of the land.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-513354/Bishop-Rochester-Islam-needs-change-outlook-reflect-modern-world.html

What part of this don’t you understand, David: “as long as this does not interfere with the workings of the law of the land”?

David, you scream about bigotry but lose your tongue about homosexuals and women. In fact, it was Muslim women who stopped such lunacy taking hold in Canada.

As for Melanie Phillips being “an utter hypocrite” – you take the Jaffa Cake on that.

Neil Saunders

To Magnus Nielsen

No, as I have said before, Lord Phillips is merely stating the establishment line regarding Islam, i.e. one of endless appeasement and indulgence (in the belief that Muslims will constitute an overall majority in a generation or so).

Our elites have taken a gamble that Muslims will be so numerous by the time the general (non-Muslim) populace wakes up to what has happened that they will simply be cowed and accept the situation with a minimum of protest.

I used to think that the elites that run this country (and the "free" world in general) were very cynical and evil, but also very clever. While I still think the former, I no longer believe the latter.

The likeliest scenario is that there will be low-level civil war in areas such as the West Riding and the old Lancashire mill towns (which is likely to escalate into more widespread conflict), and that the indigenous whites (and other non-Muslims) will rally behind various nationalist political parties (BNP, UKIP, the National Front, the English Democrats, etc.) who may very well by that time have entered into various coalitions, or formally merged with one another.

The more prescient or principled politicians from the discredited mainstream parties are likely to defect to these nationalist parties.

Something broadly similar is likely to occur across Europe.

MD

Can't lawyers take a stand against the authority of a Lord Chief Justice who shows himself so lacking in judgement?

phil

Ann as you will have seen my comments were about the Uk .not worldwide ! and you have not addressed that .

As for my pleas to you one thing is certain if you back a human or an animal up against a wall they will fight back -you constantly attack friends and foe alike with unnecessary invective .,some is necessary and I do it too,but you do not need to call me ignorant because you do not agree with me ,my comment was hardly hateful was it ?,just an opinion . We fight a similar cause and if you think I criticise you more than the real villains ,I do so because I have more respect for your reasons and do not care about the others .

You are too smart not to have noticed the criticism of many about your style so why not take notice of us and say your piece without insulting those that are on your side ? Hopefully readers will then give more weight to you arguments -please don't write back and tell me not to patronise you because that is not what I am doing

Helen

I tried to post something like this yesterday, but my computer froze, so I’ll try again.

The thrust of the Peter Oborne piece is this: Britain and its media are anti-Muslim.

I’ve not seen any leading commentators use that word, I have to say, but some of them – including as Oborne points out, Polly Toynbee – call themselves Islamophobes.

It has always been made clear by people such as Tonybee that there are certain teachings within Islam – and that is why they use the word Islam and not Muslim – that they cannot be reconciled to.

Mr Oborne then looks at some examples of shoddy reporting. Yes, I agree there is shoddy reporting and it’s not justified, but are the press any less shoddy on those than they are on other stories, including other stories with a religious dimension?

If Mr Oborne followed up every story in the media, he’d probably find that when it comes to cackhanded coverage every person of every race, creed, colour and gender faces distortionate reporting at some point or another. The newspapers are regularly filled with apologies to people from celebrities to public officials. What’s important is that such misrepresentations are put right.

Moving aside from the rough and tumble of fast-deadline reporting, which seems to deal everyone a pretty raw deal, there was one enormous omission in Mr Oborne’s essay: TV.

This week, we will see aired an episode of a new drama series called “Bonekickers” in which a British Christian beheads a… Muslim.

This comes not long after an infamous episode of Spooks in which a terrorist campaign is being waged in Britain by… Jews (mossad).

And not long after we had in the infamous “white season” a drama about a British girl solving her personal problems by… converting to Islam.

And we can have a no-holds barred satire on Christianity in the shape of Jerry Springer – the Opera (BBC2) but would a similar satire be allowed on Islam?

This is not to mention the documentaries we’ve had on the history of Islam and Islamic culture mainly on BBC 2 and some on Channel 4 praising Islam to the skies.

Does Peter Oborne not own a television set?

Helen

The thrust of the Peter Oborne piece is this: Britain and its media are anti-Muslim.

I’ve not seen any leading commentators use that word, I have to say, but some of them – including as Oborne points out, Polly Toynbee – call themselves Islamophobes.

It has always been made clear by people such as Tonybee that there are certain teachings within Islam – and that is why they use the word Islam and not Muslim – that they cannot be reconciled to.

Mr Oborne then looks at some examples of shoddy reporting. Yes, I agree there is shoddy reporting and it’s not justified, but are the press any less shoddy on those than they are on other stories, including other stories with a religious dimension?

If Mr Oborne followed up every story in the media, he’d probably find that when it comes to cackhanded coverage every person of every race, creed, colour and gender faces distortionate reporting at some point or another. The newspapers are regularly filled with apologies to people from celebrities to public officials. What’s important is that such misrepresentations are put right.

Moving aside from the rough and tumble of fast-deadline reporting, which seems to deal everyone a pretty raw deal, there was one enormous omission in Mr Oborne’s essay: TV.

This week, we will see aired an episode of a new drama series called “Bonekickers” in which a British Christian beheads a… Muslim.

This comes not long after an infamous episode of Spooks in which a terrorist campaign is being waged in Britain by… Jews (mossad).

And not long after we had in the infamous “white season” a drama about a British girl solving her personal problems by… converting to Islam.

And we can have a no-holds barred satire on Christianity in the shape of Jerry Springer – the Opera (BBC2) but would a similar satire be allowed on Islam?

This is not to mention the documentaries we’ve had on the history of Islam and Islamic culture mainly on BBC 2 and some on Channel 4 praising Islam to the skies.

Does Peter Oborne not own a television set?

Nick Wood

I suspect Lord Phillips has has one or two whiskys too many. He's either mad or drunk (or both)

Dave M

Just a few words as Enoch Powell was mentioned: In brief, yes, he was correct in his analysis but he was mistaken to turn the theme of mass immigration to a purely black/white issue. We're not facing social division and fragmentation today simply due to colour issues (whether immigrants are black or white)but as a result of the ideology and outlook of modern immigrants. Chiefly, it would be correct to state successive governments have imported radical Islam into this country via mass immigration. Thus, Enoch has been proven correct on that score. Even so, Enoch shouldn't have framed his objections, evoking attitudes of the deep American South. Rather he should have stuck to the point that mass immigration would lead to destabilisation of democracy, a watering down of democratic values and social, ethnic division. As for the "rivers of blood" it's fair to say this has started to take place in Europe. Denmark has seen some pretty nasty riots over the Muhammad cartoons as well as threats made to Danish politicians. France has witnessed anti Jewish chanting in the suburbs and burning of cars with molotov cocktails hurled around. Despite masses of denials, the U.K. has also been subject to increasing violence. These have been in the form of plotted terror attacks (many foiled) as well as ethnic clashes between immigrant groups which were hushed up by the media. Add to that soaring gun and knife crime. Only foolish BBC journalists and so-called diversity liberals would continue to deny the "rivers of blood" metaphor isn't now casting a dark shadow over this country. Besides, if the likes of the Archbishop of Cantebury and his supporters really believed radical Islam couldn't lead to social unrest unless appeased somehow, they wouldn't be advocating Sharia Law, would they? I mean, their argument is this is the only way to postpone social disorder and division. So, yes, Enoch - as a classical scholar - was no fool and he sensed what would come to be in later years. Still, I think more people would have heeded him had he not emplyed the language of the deep South and just addressed immigration and its effects. I think later on that's what Michael Howard tried to do.

wonderer

I hope further controversy about the status of the Jewish religious court in England in this blog will be minimised if people refer to this statement by the Registrar of the London Beth din, Mr David Frei, who btw I understand is an English law solicitor.
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/special_reports/?content_id=8362
This is what the BBC said: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm
I'm no fan of the BBC's output on Jews or Israel but the statement looks about right, though I'm no expert in these matters.

There is also material on the website of the LBD itself.

Certainly the LBD is a recognised arbitration body and I even read (not w/o surprise) somewhere, though I can't now find the source, that sometimes non-Jews occasionally use its facilities.

Logically, there seems to be no reason why Muslim religious courts shouldn't be able to operate in the UK, though subject to the same limitations as the Beth Din and again under the overriding authority of the secular courts.
Still, some reservations remain. Have the Muslims a uniform system of religious law? I've heard there's more than one form of Shariah. With the Muslims, is there a greater likelihood of railroading women? What if there's been a forced marriage in the background?

Also, unless the inexorable advance of moral relativism slows down, where does this process end? Some time ago, a satanist won a case against the Royal Navy for not letting him practise his faith. Will we get satanist courts?

mumin hashim

I often agree with a lot that you say. However, I don't understand why you often get the basic principles of the Sharia wrong. You are wrong to say that the Sharia does not recognise a higher authority than itself. It clearly says that a Muslim when living in a non-Muslim land must obey the laws of that land. If a Muslim cannot do that then he or she must leave as the world is a big place.
Clearly, you are an intelligent and well read person so are you making untrue and misleading comments on purpose for another agenda?

wonderer

And if we get satanist courts, would they award penalties for failure to attend a critical black mass?

wonderer

Sorry. I may have fallen below the standards of accuracy I aspire to. It looks as if the Navy didn't contest the sailor's right to register as a Satanist. They accepted it, following consultation with the ship's chaplain. See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article498640.ece How nice and tolerant is the C of E!

Ann

"Ann as you will have seen my comments were about the Uk .not worldwide ! and you have not addressed that"

RUSHDIE.

The rest of your scribblings are not worth responding to.

Paul Lewis

Lets make a deal.

Lets allow a bit more sharia law in the country (to add to the banking stuff etc we already have).

In return, just like synagogues in the UK, there is displayed in stone in the most prominent part of the building,i.e that facing their spiritual homeland, a prayer in English and Arabic exhorting Allah (or God)to protect the health and safety of the Royal Family.

I'm no royalist but if mosques were to do this, like the Jews have, I'd be happy to believe that the 'vast majority of muslims are moderate'.

phil

Ann I like your sense of humour .but Rushdie,s problems came from Iran ,and shovel my remarks to you under your carpet if you like but the facts do not go away -you are a very rude lady as many keep telling you and in most cases for no good reason

field

I have always thought Oborne slightly unsound. And this proves it.

field

Ann says:

"Field, you are wrong, as I know from people who have been through Beth Din procedures and then decided to use the normal civil system. I can't tell you more, since I would be betraying a confidence."

How convenient.

To which I say, read the legislation Ann. This from Wikipedia: "The present rules [relating to Beth Din courts]derive from the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002 (as implemented by the Family Proceedings (Amendment) Rules 2003), which applies if a decree nisi has been granted but not made absolute and the parties: (a) were married in accordance with: (i) any other prescribed religious usages; and (b) must co-operate if the marriage is to be dissolved in accordance with those usages. On the application of either party, if the court is satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case it is just and reasonable to do so, it may order that the decree nisi is not made absolute until a declaration made by both parties that they have taken such steps as are required to dissolve the marriage in accordance with those usages is produced to the court."

It is clear as daylight from the above that a person can, against their will, be made to submit to the divorce procedures of the religious court. That is outrageous and it shows that Melanie Phillips is misleading people by referring to the operation of these courts as "informal".

If someone is obliged to do something by statute then it is formal - end of.

wonderer

Field, your interpretation is perverse. In substance,this is a case of English law stepping in to alter what would otherwise be the balance of power between the parties under Jewish law.

Without this a man could prevent his ex-wife remarrying under Jewish law. If she couldn't do so her subsequent children would not be legit under Jewish law. For technical reasons a woman can't prevent the remarriage of a man.

wonderer

Phil, Rushdie's problems did come from Iran but there were repercussions here paid for out of our taxes and violent demonstrations. When the elderly Barbara Smoker, former President of the National Secular Society went to one of them, carrying a banner for "Free Speech", she was only saved from assault by the intervention of a policeman, and so were another prominent humanist and his wife.

Barbara had for decades debated with Christians as an invited speaker at universities. All very courteous and civilised. Then in the 1980s she was invited to debate with imams at Muslim student societies. A different experience.

A male humanist friend turned up once. One side of the hall was filled up with men and he went and sat with a woman humanist friend whom he saw on the other side. Some young Muslims came up and told him he couldn't sit among women. He refused to budge, despite threatening glares. After the meeting, when he left the hall he was insulted and spat upon.

No doubt some of the dyed in the wool multi-culturalists will rationalise the students' behaviour: he'd gone on to their turf, and isn't it as if he'd tried to sit among ladies in an orthodox synagogue service? Sorry I just don't buy that: this was a British university.

I see a creeping process of trying to dictate to the rest of us.

btw there were many empty spaces among the women and large numbers of the men remained standing during the debate.

Sometimes Barbara was asked if she minded debates being recorded. She consented but she noticed that the recording would be switched off when she was speaking, so the occasion would be turned into an opportunity to record just the imam's rant.

As for most of the pre-9/11 trouble being outside the UK, we were providing a haven and a forum for people like Qatada. It's incredibly blinkered to suppose that they wouldn't turn on us in the end.

phil

WONDERER what I said seems to have got out of context -I did say that that up until 9/11 we had little problem with the relations between us and the Muslim community -I did not mean none ,that would be a silly claim ,all communities have instances but ours were not changing dramatically the way of life we enjoyed -things have gathered pace since then and my post was a warning that we had all got to change the political way .,and my earnest hope is that it will be done by our mainstream parties in a democratic way . I

worry about the same things that you do ,but on a lighter note orthodox Jews would not make a fuss if men went momentarily into the ladies section .barmitsvah boys go up to kiss their mothers nobody attacks them .
Sex of course is not allowed as it might lead to dancing .(lol)

field

wonderer says:

"Field, your interpretation is perverse. In substance,this is a case of English law stepping in to alter what would otherwise be the balance of power between the parties under Jewish law.

Without this a man could prevent his ex-wife remarrying under Jewish law. If she couldn't do so her subsequent children would not be legit under Jewish law. For technical reasons a woman can't prevent the remarriage of a man."

What do you mean perverse. It's not my interpretation, it's the law. Someone who has renounced Judaism can still be made subject to the decision of the Jewish religious courts. That's the law, not my interpretation.

We aren't arguing about intentions here. The road to hell is as we know paved with good intentions. I'm not arguing that the motivation behind this law was bad. But I am arguing the consequences of the law are bad, not least because in this very same law there is provision for the same procedures to be extended to Islamic Shariah courts. No doubt the same "good intention" laws can be applied there.

By the way I loved that last sentence of yours: "For technical reasons a woman can't prevent the remarriage of a man."

What technical reasons might they be? That Jewish religious law is hard wired with gender bias?

wonderer

Field, the rule you refer to only applies if the English court, Scottish as well I shouldn't wonder, decides it is just and reasonable for it to apply. It's not compulsory. The recalcitrant just doesn't get his/her decree absolute. No fine. No imprisonment for contempt of court.

Cf Israel where men have been jailed (for decades in the particular case I read about) for not granting a Get.

On a lighter note, some people here might prefer this as the most comfortable outcome available after being picked over by the CSA or successor etc.

Technical reasons? It would be better if you did your own research as I'm no expert, but I understand that very theoretically a man can still keep more than one wife under Jewish law, but not in practice because heavyweight rabbinical decrees disallowed it many centuries ago. So the man can have another Jewish marriage even though there's been no Get. In contrast, there is no polyandry under Jewish law, which is perhaps a shame as loads are often lighter if shared, a consideration that wouldn't apply only to Jewish family life, I hasten to add.

I may have to exit these fora for a while as my sig other has just warned me that I'm unprecedentedly late this year in doing my tax return.

Kiwi

Paul Lewis wrote:
"Lets make a deal.
Lets allow a bit more sharia law in the country (to add to the banking stuff etc we already have.
In return, just like synagogues in the UK, there is displayed in stone in the most prominent part of the building,i.e that facing their spiritual homeland, a prayer in English and Arabic exhorting Allah (or God)to protect the health and safety of the Royal Family."
Maybe it's too much to ask, or perhaps too obvious - Why don't we go all the way? Let's just make it the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which should be cast in stone outside EVERY place of worship. And, while we're at it, why don't we ask EVERY immigrant, including refugees, to sign a similar document as a prerequisite of entry? Any violation would result in revocation and deportation. Simple really.

field

Wonderer -

So now you are saying that whilst it is a terrible tragedy if a woman can't get a divorce from the Jewish courts, it's no worry at all if an apostate from Judaism can't get a divorce in the secular courts. I think that's called double standards.

I think in any case we'd have to take legal advice to ascertain whether someone could be held in contempt of court if they then failed to go through the religious court procedure, effectively blocking the divorce. If they were held to be in contempt the consequences could be heavy fines and prison.

The point is there should be only one valid legal status of marriage i.e. the one recognised by our secular parliament and only one valid legal procedure for divorce.

Parliament had chosen to throw out this principle by involving these dodgy religious courts.

At least Ann is no longer trying, along with Melanie, to keep up the pretence that this is an informal and voluntary procedure. If someone is required to go through the procedure before they can obtain a divorce from the secular court then it is NOT informal and it is NOT voluntary.

Furthermore, to return to the original point, there is no principle which can reasonably be applied to prevent Shariah courts enjoying the same powers.
Indeed the very fact that the powers for both Jewish courts and Shariah courts are found in the same piece of legislation underlines this.

I suspect that the LCJ expects some human rights challenge at some point because it is clearly untenable to allow Jewish courts a say but not Shariah courts in the long term.

Jewish lobbyists have created this problem. The answer is to remove the provision for interference by the Beth Din Courts in our divorce procedures and make that a general principle.

Charles

England isn't what I remember. You, the people of England need to do something to stop this. You all need to grow a pair and stand up before you are bending over.

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

It seems that field is deliberately trying to muddle the issue.

At one time, notwithstanding the grant of an English decree absolute of divoce, a Jewish man could prevent his ex-wife from re-marrying in synagogue by withholding the 'get' or religious bill of divorcement. Now, fortunately, the secular court can require the man to give the woman the 'get' before it will convert the decree nisi into a decree absolute.

Of course an "apostate from Judaism" can obtain a divorce in the secular court ! There is no "provision for interference by the Beth Din Courts in our divorce proceedings". It's the other way round!

field's reference to "Jewish lobbyists" reveals what he's really on about.

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

Charles, stop what exactly ?

Ann

"At least Ann is no longer trying, along with Melanie, to keep up the pretence that this is an informal and voluntary procedure."

The usual unmitigated nonsense from the usual ignorant source. I have been away, then ill, then too busy to post.

Ben-Tsiyon has already demolished your silly arguments, so I can't add anything to his post. Not that you'll be able to follow his usual clear analysis, because facts don't bother you.

Ann

"I did say that that up until 9/11 we had little problem with the relations between us and the Muslim community"

Sigh ... which part of 'Rushdie' is causing the difficulty?

Ann

"How convenient", says Field, effectively calling me a liar. And then he quotes from that reliable legal source, Wikipedia. Oh, dear ...

Ann

"Ann I like your sense of humour .but Rushdie,s problems came from Iran"

Look up Dr Siddiqui (Leicester, IIRC). Not in Iran in 1989, and still not in Iran as far as I am aware.

wonderer

Ann and Rishon, I think field is upset because an apostate from Judaism who had a Jewish marriage may have to deliver a Get before he receives his decree absolute. But let's try to be practical here. Wouldn't any normal person seeking a divorce wish to end his marriage for all purposes and not remain married in some limited way, eg Jewish religious law, unless he had some disreputable motive?

phil

ann-your quote---- "Look up Dr Siddiqui (Leicester, IIRC). Not in Iran in 1989, and still not in Iran as far as I am aware" ---what is that to do with the price of bread ? do you have lists of the larger Muslim population causing trouble here?or just the odd incident from round the world

Do you just argue for the sake of argument?you remind me of the woman wathching her son marching out of step with his regiment and proclaiming that only her johnny was marching correctly.you argue with everyone no matter that no one agrees with you why? cant you read what I said and try if you reply not to call me ignorant ,ranting ,idiot stupid ,hysterical et al .I BET YOU CANT -HOPE I DIDN'T LEAVE SOME INSULTING WORD OUTbtw this isn't shouting just emphasising
.no point in wishing you well again is there you will no doubt say its patronising -ah well

field

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)says:

"It seems that field is deliberately trying to muddle the issue.

At one time, notwithstanding the grant of an English decree absolute of divoce, a Jewish man could prevent his ex-wife from re-marrying in synagogue by withholding the 'get' or religious bill of divorcement. Now, fortunately, the secular court can require the man to give the woman the 'get' before it will convert the decree nisi into a decree absolute."

Yes. And none of that is "informal" as Melanie claimed. The religious court has been brought in the divorce procedure recognised under UK law. It is part of the formal process. Melanie got it wrong I'm afraid.
It's not me who muddled the issue.

" Of course an "apostate from Judaism" can obtain a divorce in the secular court ! There is no "provision for interference by the Beth Din Courts in our divorce proceedings". It's the other way round!"

No. You have misread the legislation. The apostate can still be required to go through the Jewish religious court, even though he thinks that court has no validity. I have no idea how Beth Din courts treat apostates. I guess apostasy is grounds for divorce. But why should an apostate be forced to go through a procedure which means nothing to him/her.

"field's reference to "Jewish lobbyists" reveals what he's really on about."

Well, I've experienced that when we had this argument before. It's an easy shot - or perhaps a last resort by someone losing the argument.

The point is that this law came in primarily as a result of lobbying by Jewish people. The vast majority of people see no need for divorce a la carte.

The lobbyists got their wish but forgot this is the 21st century and the UK has a large Muslim population with its own lobbyists. Hence we end up with provision for Shariah divorce in the same legislation. Jewish lobbyists end up doing their bit to advance Shariah. That's what I call ironic.

There are Jewish lobbies, just as there are Islamic lobbies, Christian lobbies, Hindu lobbies. It doesn't make you an anti-semite to admit that truth.

I assess the proposals of Jewish lobbyists as I see fit. I support Israel. I oppose the threats of Islam to eliminate Israel. I value Israel as a civilised country that contributes a huge amount to global civilisation in music, science, medicine, art and other fields. I want to eliminate the Iranian threat to Israel, not least because the Iranians have us in their sights as well.

However, I oppose concessions to Jewish law in UK law. I oppose illegal Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem. I oppose Israel's support for non-democratic regimes such as China and Zimbabwe.

wonderer

Field, if "There are Jewish lobbies, just as there are Islamic lobbies, Christian lobbies, Hindu lobbies. It doesn't make you an anti-semite to admit that truth.

I assess the proposals of Jewish lobbyists as I see fit.",
perhaps you could direct us to some of your past observations about those "Islamic lobbies, Christian lobbies, Hindu lobbies".

Presumably they're somewhere on the Net as you seem to be quite a scribacious chap.

Neil Saunders

Ann

I really don't know why you even bother responding to "phil".

Every time you provide an intellectually and factually effective response to him, he moves the goalposts (while usually also engaging in ad hominem slurs).

He is as near to a troll as makes next to no difference, but what he is really doing is waging a kind of war of intellectual attrition (since it is clear that his sympathies are with Islam). The idea is to bait you and make you lose your cool, and then - having done so at least to his satisfaction - to proclaim your irrationality.

It is a despicable tactic. Don't encourage him.

phil

Neil ,one can only assume you are a Johnny come lately that reads bits and pieces and not the whole -I assume that by your strange assumption that I am an Islamist sympathiser-I am Jewish and a person brought up to be compassionate and rational and if you think defending one innocent mans honour is out of order then we really have no grounds for agreement-

I believe for the record that all humans are born equal and it seems you do not -so be it .as for Ann I implore her regularly to moderate her attacks and rudeness because it does not get our cause anywhere ,and in fact we really are fighting the same battle -so please do not interfere on a subject you know little about -I am going to assume for the moment you think you are defending a ladies honour-well just go back and read a lot more of her comments and mine ,perhaps you will find out why I have always been referred to as that "polite phil"-If in fact you are a bully from the BNP ,there is nothing further to say -I have debated at length with sensible members of that party on another thread ,but those sent to ferment trouble need not apply .

MOHAN DADDIKAR

If Lord Phillips does not find anything wrong with outdated sharia and is in favour of its incorporation in Englsih Law, he will be doing a favour to the people of Great Britain if he converts himself to Islam and migrates to settle in some Islamic conrty where every aspect of his life will be regulated by Sharia. He must rememebr that he is holding such a high and resepectable postion in England only because of the liberal values cherished by that couuntry for so many centuries. He does not seem to have any sense of gratitude for the spirit of tolerance of Great Britian.

Neil Saunders

As I said, Ann, phil is not worth responding to.

phil

Neil Saunders-thank you for responding as at first I thought you had misunderstood but by your response now I know you did not .

you are the true troll here and although Ann and I disagree on her style it is rarely with her content ,so do not try to drive a wedge between two people who basically agree -I am pretty sure what you privately think of both of us .your message is loud and clear, you are anti Muslim -and I am not anti any religion that behaves in a peaceful and respectful manner with its neighbours - don't bother to reply you disgust me ,and I suspect most of the other posters too.

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

Last comments, from me, on the prevailing system for dealing with Jewish religious divorce:
An "apostate from Judaism", whether male or female,who had been married in synagogue would find that the civil court would simply not be prepared to convert the decree nisi into a decree absolute until he/she allowed the other "religious" party to obtain the religious divorce. This seems to me to be a perfectly just and reasonable system, and one that could well be supported by the waving of the much misused banner of 'human rights'. I don't see that there could be any objection to applying the same principles to a failed marriage between Muslims, Hindus, Bahaiists etc. etc.

I'm glad that field has cleared the air by acknowledging that there are lobbies other than Jewish ones, since the erroneous conclusion that the vast majority of non-Jewish populations is eager to jump to is that lobbying is a peculiarly Jewish trait.

On field's comments about "east" Jerusalem, like it or not, Jerusalem (undivided)is the eternal capital of the Jewish people and has been throughout the centuries of our dispersion, notwithstanding dispossession and foreign occupations, such as the Jordanian one which was supported by the British and clearly illegal.

I don't believe that there is any basis for field's claim that Israel supports the Zimbabwean and Chinese regimes.

field

wonderer says:

"Field, if "There are Jewish lobbies, just as there are Islamic lobbies, Christian lobbies, Hindu lobbies. It doesn't make you an anti-semite to admit that truth.

I assess the proposals of Jewish lobbyists as I see fit.",
perhaps you could direct us to some of your past observations about those "Islamic lobbies, Christian lobbies, Hindu lobbies".

Presumably they're somewhere on the Net as you seem to be quite a scribacious chap."

Well, you can do your own googling. You'll find plenty of posts on this site where I oppose totalitarian Islam and support democratic Israel.

Elsewhere I've recently opposed allowing a Christian registrar to refuse to conduct civil ceremonies for gays.

Hindus are a fairly tolerant lot as these things go, but I opposed the attempt by Hindus to have a cow in Wales treated as exempt from laws on TB in animals.

Ann

Phil, you can do your own googling. Siddiqui, based in Leicester but it may have been London, was inciting very publicly indeed for Rushdie to be murdered, and he had a propaganda machine and many followers. If in your opinion that is not trouble fomented by Muslims in England against the laws of this country, then I am at a loss to understand what else you require. He should have been doing porridge for many years for incitement to murder and conspiracy. Had he been a BNP thug doing the inciting, he would have been banged up. But as a Muslim thug, he was untouchable.

field

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)-

You're entitled to your view about Jewish apostates in respect of Jewish marriages. My main concern is how this law then provides for Shariah to get involved in divorce,and I see no reason why it shouldn't if Jewish religious courts are allowed to interfere in this way.

The idea that Jerusalem entire and undivided has always been the capital of the Jewish people is absurd, provocative and unhistorical. It is a purely religious statement and we know religions come out with all sorts of bonkers statements.

The fact is that most of East Jerusalem never existed prior to the 1970s. The fact is it is humans who decide the city limits of Jerusalem, not Jehovah.

People of good will can see that it is perfectly possible for both Israelis and Palestinians to have Jerusalem as their capital. We can have an international zone for the most contested parts and we can ensure both states have control over areas so that they can claim it as their capital. Otherwise the divide should be along Jewish majority/Arab majority lines, with the Israelis making some concessions here and there given their aggressive building programme in the city over the last few decades.

I'm glad you accept there is a Jewish lobby. That's the reality . It's quite powerful in the UK and more so in the USA. But in no way is it all-powerful and we both agree there are huge numbers of other lobbies, many of them opposing the Jewish lobby (or more accurately lobbies, since Jewish opinion is in no sense monolithic).

Take a look at the Israeli foreign ministry site on the internet and see what is said by Israeli ministers about China. Israel's close relations with China, including export of military equipment has been a source of concern for the USA
as many analysts acknowledge.

I admit evidence for the Zimbabwe position is not so easy to isolate but (a) I can find no record of the Israelis joining in with EU style sanctions against Zimbabwe. (b) There was a recent Israeli-Zimbabwe trade mission launched by a Christian group. It drew no adverse comment from the Israeli government.

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

field, last time round I offered my final comments on Jewish religious divorce, so I suggest that you refer again to what I wrote about "human rights" and "applying the same principles to a failed marriage between Muslims...etc. etc." As to your allegation that "...Jewish religious courts are allowed to interfere..." with English civil divorce, oh I guess this must be part of that international Jewish conspiracy that supposedly intelligent people subscribe to! I think you have a warped mind.

Please treat my previous statement about the Jewish status of Jerusalem (the English name is derived from the Hebrew 'Yerushalayim')as repeated here. It is not "a purely religious statement", but a substantially nationalistic one. Aside from its religious significance, the Hebrew bible is a history of our people:

"If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its cunning"(Psalm 137:5).

Despite the Roman destruction of Israel 2,000 years ago and the exile of most of the nation, we have succeeded in preserving our national identity, culture and traditions throughout our dispersion, and despite severe oppression by our wonderful 'host' nations. Throughout this period, our daily prayers and our literature have persistently reiterated our claim to our homeland and hope for our return. The miracle has happened:

"The re-birth of Israel is an unprecedented phenomenon in human history. That a people should go into exile, be dispersed, and yet survive for 2,000 years, that they should be a nation without a national homeland and come back again, that they should re-establish that homeland is a miraculous, singular event. No one ever did such a thing." (from Rabbi Ken Spiro's 'Crash Course in Jewish History', Part 62).

Who are you, and those like you, to pronounce on Jewish rights and the future of Jerusalem ! I suppose that you include among those "people of goodwill" the so-called "Palestinians" ! I've a pretty good ideae of what their reaction would be to your "plans" for the future of Jerusalem ! As in the past, and whatever the future may hold, Jerusalem will always belong to the Jewish people.

A Jewish lobby that is "quite powerful in the UK" ! You must be joking ! If there is one, it hasn't succeeded in countering the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel propaganda that's churned out by the British news media (captained by the Biased Broadcasting Corporation)or the endemic anti-Semitism.

Yes, I guess that Israel does adopt policies that reflect those adopted by all sovereign states in promoting their own national interests, but if you're going to moralize on such issues, I suggest that you look first to your own "glass-house" country before throwing stones at others !

Thorum

Britain's slow suicide aided by the Muslim invasion and a severe case of Political Correctness mixed with Dhimmitude continues.

David Watkins

I have read your posts regularly but not commented before. I support everything you say and believe it is time the public were told the truth. It is the responsibilty of every person with the power to reveal what it ACTUALLY says in the Quran about infidels, women, violence, lying and so much more. I honestly believe if people actually knew what it said and that the words are unchangable and for all time in the opinion of muslims they would begin to see how Islam is incompatible not only with western values but with civilisation itself.
If you will allow I will use a couple of quick examples to illustrate what I mean.
1)Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrong-doers.
5:51
2)Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and Allah's religion shall reign supreme.
8:36

3)Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them.
9:121

4)4:11“Allah directs you in regard of your Children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females…. These are settled portions ordained by Allah.”

5)4:15“If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death [by starvation] claims them.”
6) 8:59“The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them.

The tip of the iceberg, the problem is people are not made aware of what is in the Quran; simply quote the Quran and you will be jailed for hate peech. You will called all kinds of derogotory names, racist, islamophobe and all you do it recite Islams own words.

USN_Popeye

God help you, Brits. Fight the good fight in every way possible. Expel the trouble makers. FIGHT BACK FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! Whatever happened to British Resolve? Whatever happened to British Steel? Whatever happened to British NERVE? Good Grief! I have had the the priviledge of serving with RN and SBS during my enlistment with the United States NAVY. What is happpenining in the UK is unforfgivible. For shame. To my Brit Sailor Brothers In Arms: Do what you have to do!F*ck the ingrate parasites.